Gracenote, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 23, 2020

15620440 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/620,440 06/12/2017 Dewey Ho Lee 17-129 5460
139404 7590 10/23/2020
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP/Gracenote
300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
ANDRAMUNO, FRANKLIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2020 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DEWEY HO LEE, SHASHANK C. MERCHANT, and
MARKUS K. CREMER
____________________

Appeal 2020-000610
Application 15/620,440
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims
pending. Oral argument was heard on September 17, 2020. A transcript of
the hearing has been added to the record. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Gracenote, Inc., a
subsidiary of The Nielsen Company (US), LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000610
Application 15/620,440

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The invention generally relates to a video presentation device, alone
or in combination with a server or computing system, identifying video
content being rendered by evaluating the content without receiving
information regarding the content from the video source. Spec. ¶ 8. More
specifically, the described and claimed invention relates to using video
content fingerprints, which have a first portion representing a pre-established
video segment and a second portion representing a dynamically-defined
video segment, to (1) identify, by matching the first portion to a reference
fingerprint, the content being rendered and (2) detect, by applying a neural
network to the second portion, that the content continues to be rendered.
Spec. ¶¶ 11, 13–20, Figs. 2–4. Claims 1, 16, and 19 are independent claims.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of detecting and responding to rendering
of video content by a video presentation device, wherein the
video content includes (i) a pre-established video segment that
does not vary based on user-interaction during the rendering and
(ii) a dynamically-defined video segment that varies based on
user-interaction during the rendering, the method comprising:
obtaining by a computing system a query fingerprint
generated in real-time during the rendering as a representation of
the video content being rendered, the query fingerprint including
a first portion representing the pre-established video segment and
a second portion representing the dynamically-defined video
segment;
while obtaining the query fingerprint, the computing
system (a) detecting a match between the first portion of the
query fingerprint and a reference fingerprint that represents the
pre-established video segment, (b) based on the detecting of the
match, identifying the video content being rendered, (c) after
identifying the video content being rendered, applying a trained
Appeal 2020-000610
Application 15/620,440

3
neural network to at least the second portion of the query
fingerprint, and (d) detecting, based on the applying of the neural
network, that rendering of the identified video content continues;
and
responsive to at least the detecting that rendering of the
identified video content continues, the computing system taking
action specific to the identified video content.
The Pending Rejections
Claims 1–6, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious in view of Sakaguchi (US 2006/0252533 A1; Nov. 9,
2006), Burges (US 2006/0106867 A1; May 18, 2006), and Ham (US
2008/0318676 A1; Dec. 25, 2008). Final Act. 5–15.
Claims 7–10, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Sakaguchi, Burges, Ham, and Rose (US 2014/0373043
A1; Dec. 18, 2014). Final Act. 16–19.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Sakaguchi, Burges, Ham, and Soderstrom (US 2009/0150947 A1; June 11,
2009). Final Act. 20–21.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Sakaguchi, Burges, Ham, Soderstrom, and Lewis (US 9,872,076 B1; Jan. 16,
2018). Final Act. 21–22.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Sakaguchi, Burges, Ham, and Hua (US 2018/0041765 A1; Feb. 8, 2018).
Final Act. 22–23.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Sakaguchi, Burges, and Ham
teaches or suggests every limitation recited in independent claims 1, 16, and
19. Final Act. 5–9, 11–15. Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the
Appeal 2020-000610
Application 15/620,440

4
Examiner finds (1) Sakaguchi teaches or suggests a method of detecting and
responding to rendering video content including a pre-established segment
and a dynamic segment because Sakaguchi divides a game play screen into a
portion containing interactive content (i.e., dynamic) and other portions
containing non-playable cutscenes (i.e., pre-established) and (2) Burges
teaches or suggests a query fingerprint representing streamed media, as
recited in claim 1, because Burges’s system identifies media objects in a
media stream by comparing traces from sampled portions of the streamed
media to a database having known fingerprints. Final Act. 5–6 (citing
Sakaguchi ¶¶ 6, 76; Burges ¶¶ 10, 15); see also Ans. 3 (“Examiner is clear in
pointing out the ‘fingerprint’ is taught by Burges (see page 2 paragraph
(0015)) not by Ham.”).
The Examiner finds the combination of Sakaguchi and Burges,
however, is “silent in teaching a query first portion representing the pre-
established video segment and a second portion representing the
dynamically-defined video segment,” and the Examiner therefore relies on
Ham for these teachings. Final Act. 7 (citing Ham ¶ 52). The Examiner also
finds Ham teaches the remaining limitations—i.e., the limitations regarding
(1) detecting a match between a reference and a portion of a query (2) to
identify the rendered content, (3) applying a neural network to the query
(4) to detect the identified content continues to be rendered, and (5) taking
an action in response to detecting rendering continues—with respect to a
“query” and a “reference,” but the Examiner does not find Ham teaches
performing these actions with respect to query and reference fingerprints
Appeal 2020-000610
Application 15/620,440

5
representing portions of the content. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Ham ¶¶ 55, 56,
58).2
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to include
Ham’s teachings “for a query first portion representing the pre-established
video segment and a second portion representing the dynamically-defined
video segment” from the Sakaguchi-Burges combination, finding that “[a]
useful combination is found on Ham (page 1 paragraph (0004)) a
determination is made that player’s avatar has performed an action while an
audio signal representing a narrative of a non-player character is being
produced.” Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner further states that “combining
Sakaguchi Burges and Ham is proper because they are related to media
stream combined to display content to users.” Ans. 3.
Appellant argues the rejection fails to address the claim limitations as
recited. Appeal Br. 5–12; Reply Br. 3–4. More specifically, Appellant
contends the Examiner omits the “fingerprint” term from portions of claim
language such that the Examiner’s findings regarding the Sakaguchi, Burges,
and Ham fail to address the particularly recited claim limitations. See, e.g.,
Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant argues that, even assuming Burges teaches using
fingerprints to identify content, the claims recite a query fingerprint with
particularly recited portions representing different types of video content and
using the different portions in particular ways. Appellant then asserts that,

2 The Examiner appears to map Ham’s “impression-to-response mapping
(330)” to a first portion of a query and Ham’s “action to response database
(328)” to a reference. Ans. 4. These findings (i.e., that Ham’s impression-
to-response mapping 330 and action-to-response database 328 teach or
suggest a first portion of a query and a reference, respectively) are not
clearly explained, but for purposes of this Appeal, we accept the Examiner’s
findings.
Appeal 2020-000610
Application 15/620,440

6
even accepting Ham teaches what the Examiner finds it teaches regarding
various logic functions and Burges generally teaches using fingerprints,
Ham does not relate to fingerprints and the Examiner has not explained how
or why Ham’s logic functions would be included in the proposed Sakaguchi-
Burges system to result in (1) query fingerprints having the recited portions
or (2) performing the recited actions on the respective portions of the query
fingerprint. Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 3–4; see also Appeal Br. 11–12
(arguing that, even if combined, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained
how the disclosures from Sakaguchi, Burges, and Ham that the Examiner
relies on would have taught or suggested the recited limitations relate to
analyzing the portions of the query fingerprint).
We agree with Appellant. Even accepting the Examiner’s findings
regarding the teachings of Sakaguchi, Burges, and Ham, it is unclear from
the Examiner’s findings and explanation how the Examiner proposes
combining the cited teachings to result in at least (1) a query fingerprint with
two distinct portions, respectively representing a pre-established video
segment and a dynamically-defined video segment and (2) after identifying
the rendered content, detecting that the identified content continues to be
rendered by applying a trained neural network to the second portion of the
fingerprint (that represents a dynamically-defined segment). “When a
reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that
claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as
nearly as practicable” and “[t]he pertinence of each reference, if not
apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.”
37 C.F.R. §1.104(c)(2) (emphases added). An agency is bound by its own
regulations. See Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 388 (1957).
Appeal 2020-000610
Application 15/620,440

7
Because the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Sakaguchi,
Burges, and Ham, in combination, teach or suggest the particular limitations
recited in representative claim 1, we are constrained by this record to reverse
the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 16 and 19, which recite
commensurate limitations, as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
Sakaguchi, Burges, and Ham. Each of the dependent claims include the
same limitation via their ultimate dependency from one of claims 1, 16, and
19, and the Examiner does not find that any of the additionally cited art
cures this deficiency. Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of
dependent claims 2–15, 17, 18, and 20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of the cited prior art for the same reasons.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 11, 12,
16, 17, 19
103 Sakguchi, Burges, Ham 1–6, 11, 12,
16, 17, 19
7–10, 18,
20
103 Sakguchi, Burges, Ham 7–10, 18,
20
13 103 Sakguchi, Burges, Ham 13
14 103 Sakguchi, Burges, Ham 14
15 Sakguchi, Burges, Ham 15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED